Machado v. Weare Police Department
494 F. App'x 102
1st Cir.2012Background
- Machado, incarcerated, filed a §1983 action against Weare Police Department officers for stop, search, and arrest allegedly violating the Fourth Amendment and the New Hampshire Constitution.
- The underlying incident occurred April 29, 2009, when Machado and his fiancée were followed into a closed business parking lot by Lt. Carney after a late-night stop.
- Carney observed Machado discard an item into the back seat; Machado later produced a curling iron.
- Carney conducted a frisk after noting a waistband bulge and then detained Machado, placing him in a cruiser while a background check was sought.
- Fermanis identified Machado, permissions to search Fermanis’s vehicle were obtained, heroin was found in the car, and Machado was arrested; warrants later surfaced indicating Machado had prior offenses.
- A state court suppression ruling deemed the initial stop violative of the NH Constitution; charges were dropped, and Machado’s current incarceration relates to warrants arising from those events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Machado argues the stop was unlawful. | Carney acted on reasonable suspicion given late-night, closed-business location and prior incidents. | Yes, the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; Carney is entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Were the subsequent frisk and detention within permissible Terry stop limits? | Frisk and cruiser detention were excessively intrusive. | Circumstances (tossed object, evasive conduct, flight risk) justified a limited frisk and detention. | Yes, the frisk and temporary detention were permissible and protected by qualified immunity. |
| Was there probable cause for arrest after discovering heroin? | Arrest lacked probable cause due to flawed initial stop. | Discovery of drugs plus warrants established probable cause. | Yes, probable cause supported arrest; actions not in violation of Fourth Amendment or protected by qualified immunity. |
| Does supervisory/municipal liability attach here? | Supervisor/municipal liability for unconstitutional actions. | No evidence of a constitutional violation by supervisory policy; claims fail. | No separate supervisory/municipal liability; affirmed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (requires specific and articulable facts for reasonable suspicion; objective basis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief stops with reasonable suspicion for safety checks)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (reasonable suspicion and stop reasoning; integrated analysis for sequential steps)
- United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (progression of stop informs reasonableness of subsequent actions)
- United States v. Aitoro, 446 F.3d 246 (1st Cir. 2006) (frisk justified by emerging circumstances during stop)
- United States v. Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1998) (handcuffing during stop analyzed for reasonableness and safety)
- Flowers v. Fiore, 359 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2004) (handcuffing/Durst limits during Terry stop; reasonable under circumstances)
- United States v. Dunbar, 553 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits of Terry stop and continuation based on evolving circumstances)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (probable cause for arrest supported by evidence obtained during stop)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity requires objective reasonableness)